Well. I gotta say. After all this, it still sounds like you don't understand what they are. And it's really not hard at all to find out what they are and how they work.

External costs nuclear vs coal

Yes, the person who has posted references is the person who refuses to do research or educate themselves.

That's because you refuse to educate yourself on the subject so we can begin an actual debate on the subject of indemnities and how they affect the cost structure of nuclear power.

You haven't had an opinion in the last 5 responses.

Socialized costs is much greater than indemnities.

You don't seem to be very trusting of my opinion. And that's perfectly fine.

That's why I suggested you do your own research so you're not having to depend on my own personal take on the subject.

If you really wanted me to understand your POV on indemnities and socializing costs and privatizing profits were, you'd have done so by now.

But you haven't. Because you know I'm right.

I'm just saying that if you want to understand what I meant by privatizing profits and socializing costs you have to understand what indemnities are and how they work in the nuclear power industry

Oh. So you've taken steps to make your point clearer? Crystal clear? Like hematite?

Or you've countered my claims that coal plants cause asthma, but haven't been held responsible for them?

If you're a lawyer, you're not very good at supporting your point.

It's just that you're probably going to struggle understanding the "privatizing profits and socializing costs" angle if you don't know what indemnities are and how they function in the nuclear power equation.

In addition to everything else because they're basically on the ocean the water that would flood the big hole would be salty, and salt water is bad for pretty much everything. Corrodes and degrades, so you probably don't want to be spraying it all over your very expensive rockets.

Your point? Crystal clear? If mud is crystal.

You've done little to further your point. Or to counter my claims that fossil fuels have more social costs than nuclear.

It should be crystal clear by this point I would have thought?

So you're a lawyer?

I'm very confused about your point. If you are a lawyer I'd think you'd be better about making your point.

You should really look up how the indemnities work to have a fuller understanding of what you're advocating. It's worth your time.

>I guess with nuclear it's just a matter of the scales involved.

Exactly my point. Coal is much worse for people than nuclear, even when accounting for MWh/year life lost. So many more people are affected by coal than nuclear.

It's like comparing car accidents to air accidents. Car accidents cause more deaths in total and per mile traveled, but people freak out about air accidents because there are more deaths per accident.

Or where you trying to imply that mining and heavy industry actually pay out all the indemnities they should, but nuclear plants don't? Politics kind of makes that improbable.

Still don't understand the "nuclear expert" comment. Are you referring to yourself as the "nuclear expert" or to me?

Therefore in the ratio mJ/kg, light is undefined and cannot be on the chart; which was the original point.

Ok then.

Well it's kind of important to understand how the indemnities work to get the original point of privatizing profit and socializing costs.

I agree that sort of thing happens a lot. I guess with nuclear it's just a matter of the scales involved.

But

no results

So you are a lawyer, nuclear physicist, public health expert, and economist.

Well it's kind of critical to the original argument. Not sure we can go any further if you don't understand them.

Are you implying that I am the economist/lawyer/nuclear physicist or you are?

Oh, I see what you're saying, you're saying the damage would be to the concrete around the periphery rather than immediately beneath the rocket. That makes sense, thanks!

>indemnities

That sounds like law. Not sure what you're getting at with the nuclear expert comment.

Or where you're going with this in general. But do you think kids growing up around coal generators that get asthma get a big pay out from the companies? IF they did I don't think coal plants would exist.

[removed]